and 3D games too :DQuote:
Originally Posted by teat
Printable View
and 3D games too :DQuote:
Originally Posted by teat
hm... Phenom is go in chipset NF4? :p:
Nice...NOW SHOW US THE QUADFIRE RESULTS !!! :D :D
I wonder what the comparison results would be like using Nvidia cards?
In your wildest dreams ;) I'd love for that to be the case. As it stands, AMD is pretty much out of consideration when it comes to overclocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
All respect to Macci. But dude works for DAMIT. What do you expect............ Time and time again it's been shown that Phenom looses clock for clock. And not like you can expect Phenom to do 4g+ on air. For OC'ers Phenom holds no value
Nice to see you post, Macci
and good to know Phenom is not a DUD overall :D
one second thought, 3-4 years of R&D and only this???
Ye thinking the same - seems AMD HT make 2 slower card to communicate each other better through the bus - ist's called chipset. That doesn't make even close, the highly overclocked Phenom seen to time VS stock York-ie, in CPU performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
I would like to see all 3Dmark with Single 2900 1ghz/1ghz with 3ghz AMD compared to 4500mhz York-e with same voltage ;) Ye we know even year and a half Core2duo can outprerform AMD x4 in multithreading tasks when overclocked, not to talk about 3dmark and quad ;)
Come on guys these processors are like comparing apples to oranges ;)
looks good there macci
and how come macci proved the opposite?Quote:
Originally Posted by railer
3ghz yorkfield with 1100mhz mem looses against a 3ghz phenom with 1000mem.
Selective reading is what fboys are good at it seems :D
Have you read this guys?
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13724
Am I the only one that noticed that it only beat the core in the fairy benchmark?
Its easy to cherry pick a bench to favor a cpu,just like core kills in 01/pi why dont you run the same setup in 3d06 and see the out come.
We also dont know what drivers were used on the intel setup.
What a nice fight in AMD vs Intel discussion thread once again ;)
Macci, looks like our small tweaking battle made some people very frustrated. I'll push the Yorkfield system over 19610 in 3DMark05 tomorrow :)
Here are couple of things to consider when comparing the results:
QX9650 price: $999
Phenom 9600: $283
QX9650 scaling with air cooling: ~4,5 GHz
Phenom 9600 scaling with air cooling: ~3 GHz
3DMark is synthetic benchmark and in real world applications you will see different results, don't take 3DMark scores so serious. K10 architecture has some nice potential but with current clock speeds, scaling and L3 TLB issues Phenom has definitely been a disappointment. Hopefully new stepping will improve things in Q1/2008 and we will see close to 4 GHz results with better cooling.
QFT...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampsa
Im sure once the rest of the Quad Penryn lineup comes out the pricing issue wont be anywhere near the difference it is now. A (ficticious) 2.3Ghz Penryn for $300 o/c to 3Ghz would look pretty tastey next to AMDs offering. :yepp:
Your last paragraph is spot on! :up:
Very nice work there. ;) A good comparison (if you leave out oc potential and expense). $$$ where it comes to it so we need a Q9450 compared.
hehe Sampsa you are inviting fanbois now to completely derail the thread
here's some cpu score testing with phenom 9500 @ 2.7 ghz nb @ near 2ghz
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9721/3dmarkqs8.jpg
Heh, heh, heh.......I'm STILL waiting for macci to bench a 2k5 AND a 2k6 @ 3000MHz with an 2900XT @ 860/1016..... :p:
@ Sampsa......IF we get a E8400 which will be cheep enough for the 2k5 and play with it at 500MHz FSB, then come and tell me about prices and performance in this particular bench... ;) :p:
Take a look at both results again , i did notice something ;) :D
What? - what?..... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
single channel RAM on AMD rig???
No, it's 64bit+64bit unganged mode iirc.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
:rofl: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by railer
fanboyism at its best :D
its not that you dont see many of them its more so it takes alot of time to o/c such a complicated cpu. macci was just the first one to it :)
haven't heard of that before eekQuote:
Originally Posted by EnJoY
I have to agree here and since this is XS....Quote:
Originally Posted by railer
K10 at it's current price point isn't a bad architecture for specific server users but as a desktop architecture for enthousiasts it's disapointing. I can't help feeling K10 is just an updated K8 architecture updated in ways not too interesting for desktop users. A quad core K8 wouldn't offer much less value than Phenom for 99% of desktop users. AMD has had enough time and funds to make something better than K10, so in my opinion they have failed.